The itinerary notes in Numbers 21 is a hodgepodge of styles and directions. Nevertheless, once we isolate each style, we find three separate itinerary lists, each from one of the standard Pentateuchal sources.

Dr. David Ben-Gad HaCohen (Dudu Cohen)

The March of the Israelites through the wilderness. Foster Bible, Wikimedia

Little Overlap with Itinerary List Although in many places, the two itineraries overlap significantly, in their description of the route in the Transjordan from Kadesh to the steppes of Moab, they are quite different and have little overlap. Of the twenty two sites mentioned in the two parallel itineraries of the Israelite journey from Kadesh to the steppes of Moab, only five sites are common to both the itinerary list[3] and the itinerary notes, while seventeen sites appear only in one description, and not in the other.[4]

Three Style Variations

The itinerary notes in Num. 21 are not unified stylistically, and show three main styles (with some variation):

Using journeying and encamping verbs, mentioning a starting point and encampment. This is the same formula as used uniformly in the itinerary list (Num 33).

וַיִּסְעוּ מִ_____ וַֽיַּחֲנוּ בְּ_______

They set out from X and encamped at Y

A formula with journeying and encamping verbs that does not mention the starting point of the journey, but does specify the encampment site.

מִשָּׁם נָסָעוּ וַֽיַּחֲנוּ בְּ_______

From there they set out and encamped at Y

A concise style, without verbs.

וּמִ______ ________(או: וּמִשָּׁ֖ם ________)

From X, Y(or: From there Y)

The Contrast with Assyrian ParallelsEach of the three main styles in the Pentateuch has parallels in Assyrian texts,[5] but unlike the text of the itinerary notes in Numbers 21, the Assyrian inscriptions never mix styles. Instead, each scribe chose the style he found suitable, and adhered to it throughout the inscription. Thus, Numbers 21 demands some sort of source-critical treatment.

Supplementary vs. Documentary Approach

Angela Roskop Erisman sees the itinerary notes in Num 20-21 as the earlier text,[6] explaining the mixture of styles in these notes with a supplementary approach, suggesting a core text that underwent three redactions, with each redactor using a different style.[7] She further sees the itinerary list in Num 33 as a secondary compilation based on the itinerary notes (before it was supplemented), with the addition of sites that appear in Joshua and in Deuteronomy, and finally reconstituted in one dominant style (as opposed to the hodgepodge of styles in the notes).[8]

Three Israelite Journey Routes in TransjordanThe documentary approach, however, to which I subscribe, explains the discontinuity by positing not multiple redactions of a core text but multiple sources spliced together and compiled into one text. In fact, I believe we can isolate three complete, separate itineraries here (something that speaks against the correctness of the supplementary approach to this text),[9] each of which corresponds with one of the styles of the sources as known from other texts.[10]

1. The Sihon Account Journey

The war of Sihon is described in detail and extensively in three places:

The narrative in Numbers (21:21–30).

Moses’ retelling of it in Deuteronomy (2:24b–36).

Jephthah the Gileadite’s use of it in the “history lesson” he gives the king of the Ammonites (Judg 11:19–22).

These descriptions differ,[11] but their basic message is the same: the Israelite camp sent a delegation to the Amorite king Sihon to ask permission to pass though his country. Sihon refuses, and gathers his army to war against Israel. The battle is waged at Yahatz; Israel prevails, and takes possession of Sihon’s land.[12]

The war with Sihon is situated within the context of a journey through the Transjordan, which is mentioned three times:

List in Deuteronomy

Jephthah’s Speech (Judges)

List in Numbers 20-21

• Kadesh (1:46),

• Kadesh,

• Kadesh (20:14, 16),

• The wilderness journey by way of the Sea of Reeds (2:1a),

• The journey by way of the Sea of Reeds

• The journey around the hill country of Seir (2:1b),

• The journey in the wilderness around the land of Edom

• Around the land of Edom (21:4aβ),

• The journey from the road of the Arabah, away from Elath and Ezion-gaber (2:8a),

• Through the wilderness of Moab (2:8b),

• To the east of Moab,

• The journey in the wilderness to the east of Moab (21:11bβ),

• Wadi Zered (v. 13),

• Wadi Zered (v. 12),

• Wadi Arnon (v. 24aα),

• The Arnon,

• Wadi Arnon (v. 13a),

• The wilderness of Kedemoth (v. 26a),

• Yahatz (v. 32).

• Yahatz (Judg 11:17–20).

• Yahatz (v. 23).

These three lists are likely based on a lost core list, which was expanded, contracted, and/or adjusted over time such that we now have three versions of it. One way of isolating a possible “core” list is by including journey items that are listed in at least two of the three descriptions; this yields the following:

Kadesh (all 3),

By way of the Sea of Reeds (Deut and Judg),

Around the land of Edom/the hill country of Seir (all 3),

East of Moab/the wilderness of Moab (all 3),

Wadi Zered (Deut and Num 21),

(Wadi) Arnon (all 3),

Yahatz (all 3).

This list, most of which appears in Num 20-21 makes use of the second style (ומשם נסעו ויחנו ב_____):

From there they set out and encamped beyond the Arnon, that is, in the wilderness that extends from the territory of the Amorites.

2. The Itinerary List Journey

The itinerary list in Num 33 offers the following itinerary for the journey in the Transjordan:

Kadesh,

Mount Hor,

Zalmonah,

Punon,

Oboth,

Iye-abarim,

Dibon-gad,

Almon-diblathaim,

The hills of Abarim,

The steppes of Moab (Num 33:37–49).

Only Kadesh is common to this route and to the “Sihon Account Journey.”

Overlap in Itinerary NotesFour of the stations in the “Itinerary List Journey” appear in the same order also in the Itinerary Notes of Num 20–22:

Kadesh (20:22),

Mount Hor (20:22–27; 21:4),

Oboth (21:10–11),

Iye-abarim (21:11).

Thus, these four stations reflect a conception of a journey similar to that of the Itinerary List in Num 33, and make use of the long, transit verb style (ויסעו מ___ ויחנו ב___), the style used by the Assyrian annals for military campaigns:[13]

Setting out from Kadesh, the Israelites arrived in a body at Mount Hor.Setting out from Mount Hor… they encamped at Obot.Setting out from Obot, they encamped at Iyei HaAbarim.

3. The Pisgah Journey (Num 21:16–19)

An additional route appears in Numbers 21 as a consecutive list of stations, in the concise style, that are not mentioned in Num 33:

Beer,[14]

Midbar,[15]

Mattanah,

Nahaliel,

Bamoth,

The valley that is in the country of Moab,

The peak of Pisgah.

The final stop on this journey, “the peak of Pisgah,” appears in the next story of the Torah, where Balak suggests that Balaam can stand and see the Israelite camp in order to curse them.[16]

The mountain is also mentioned in four other places within the geographical surveys of the Transjordan.[17] The toponym used in these descriptions, אשדת הפסגה “the slopes of Pisgah” teaches that (ha)-Pisgah is a specific name, and not a generic one.

We learn from these verses that the lofty mountain named “[the] Pisgah”[18] provided a view of the northern Dead Sea and of the Israelite camp in the steppes of Moab (Num 23:14).[19] This geographical data places Pisgah northwest of Yahatz, the site of the battle against Sihon,[20] and effectively bypasses this area without being conscious that there was supposed to be a battle in the area. Accordingly, this third route belongs to a different source and tradition than that of the Sihon Account Journey.[21]

And from the (wilderness) [well] to Mattanah,and from Mattanah to Nahaliel,and from Nahaliel to Bamoth,and from Bamoth to the valley that is in the country of Moab, at the peak of Pisgah, overlooking the wasteland.

Explaining the Variation in StyleThus, the inconsistent style and itinerary in Numbers 21 is a consequence of the combination of different sources—each with its own internal logic and uniform style—by one redactor/compiler.[23] He joined the three routes into a single route, which is presented as one itinerary in Numbers 21, but which, as a journey description, lacks geographical logic.

The Journey Routes and their
Respective Pentateuchal Documents

Once we separate out the sources, we have three logical journey routes, each of which comes from one of the three standard Pentateuchal documents found in Numbers (E, J, P), and each of which fits with the narrative framing of that document.

The Sihon Account Journey (E) In the E text, the Israelites leave Kadesh (Petra), avoiding Edom and Moab. After crossing Wadi Arnon, they end up by Yahatz, in the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites. After refusing them passage, Sihon musters his troops, the Israelites defeat him in battle, and his land becomes the possession of the tribes of Reuben and Gad.[24]

The Itinerary List Journey (P)All the verses that use “they set out – and they encamped”[25] in the Torah are Priestly, including the entirety of Num 33[26] and the section of Num 21 that parallels it.[27] In P, the Israelites travel from Kadesh to Mount Hor, which is where Aaron dies and is buried. As the Israelites continue on into Moabite territory, past Iye-abarim to Mount Abarim, also called Mount Nebo, which is where Moses dies according to P.[28] In P too, the itinerary in Numbers 21 is shorter than the one in Numbers 33. Stations were omitted from the original list of P.

The Pisgah Journey (J)The Pisgah Journey itinerary, which in its current context appears unconnected to any previous event or journey,[29] actually connects to two different J accounts. Bamoth and the summit of Pisgah are locations where Balak built altars for Balaam (Num 22:41, 23:14). These verses are part of the J version of the Balaam story.[30] Additionally, according to the J account, this same summit of Pisgah, upon which Balaam stood and blessed the Israelites, is the very place Moses dies and is buried.[31]

Conclusion – Omission rather than Addition

The compiler of the Torah had a difficult task; he needed to combine three separate itineraries containing contradictory elements into one list that would look cohesive.[32] In doing so, he had to omit sections of at least two of the itineraries. Even so, the combined account remains bewildering, especially for anyone who tries to recreate a single itinerary with map in hand.

Dr. Dudu Cohen (David Ben-Gad HaCohen) has a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible from the Hebrew University (2011), where he did his undergraduate and masters training as well (1974). His dissertation is titled, Kadesh in the Pentateuchal Narratives, and deals with issues of biblical criticism and historical geography. He was a high school Bible and Jewish History teacher in Sderot, and spent 1979-1981 in Chicago as a shaliach to the United Synagogue Youth movement. Dudu has been a licensed Israeli guide since 1972. He conducts tours in Israel as well as Jordan. You may contact him at duduchn@zahav.net.il Read the Interview: An Israeli Tour Guide with a Ph.D. in Bible

[2] Bible scholars differ in their analysis of the literary connection between the itinerary list and the itinerary notes. Martin Noth suggested that the itinerary list is built from stations that appear in the itinerary notes in Exodus and Numbers, which he added to the itinerary of a single specific route. See Martin Noth, “Der Wallfahrtsweg zum Sinai,” PJB 36 (1940), 5–28; idem, Numbers: A Commentary (trans. J.D. Martin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 242–243. Other scholars, in contrast, regard the itinerary notes and associated events to be a literary expansion of the itinerary list. See Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 301–321, esp. 308–309; Graham I. Davies, The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament (SOTSMS 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 59–60. For an additional list of scholars who held this view before the 1970s, see idem, “The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” VT 33/1 (1983):1–13, esp. 8 n. 13.

[7] See: Roskop, The Wilderness Itineraries, 204–215. The original Priestly route, she maintains, led to the war with Arad (Num 21:1–3) and to the conquest of the Land of Israel from the south (193–203). This route underwent two redactions, the first to incorporate the war with Sihon and the second to incorporate the Balaam narrative. These redactions divert the journey route from the Negev to the heart of the kingdoms of Edom and Moab in the Transjordan (206–208). The third redaction was intended to give the impression that the route passed through the wilderness to the east of Moab (209–214).

[8] This supposition does not explain the sites: Dophkah and Alush (Num 33:12–14), Rithmah, Rimmon-perez, Libnah, Rissah, Kehelath, Mount Shepher, Haradah, Makheloth, Tahath, Terah, Mithkah, and Hashmonah (Num 33:18–30), and Zalmonah (41–42), that appear only in the itinerary list. Nor does it explain why the sites: the wilderness of Paran (Num 10:12; 12:16; 13:3, 26), wadi Zered (Num 21:12), the Arnon (v. 13), Beer (v. 16), Mattanah, Nahaliel, Bamoth, “the valley that is in the territory of Moab,” “the peak of Pisgah” (vv. 18–20), and Jahaz (v. 23), that appear in the itinerary notes, are not included in the itinerary list.

[9] In other words, I am emphasizing the importance of narrative continuity for isolating sources, following the methods of Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Torah – Its Five Books and Four Documents,” in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies (ed. Z. Talshir; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011), 161–226, esp. 193, 213 (Hebrew) and Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch. Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2012).

[10] Two verses of Chapter 21 do not fit any of the above styles (21:4, 11), but are a mixed style. These verses were composed when the compiler combined data from two different lists.

[11] Noting the literary connection between the three descriptions, and the linkage between the delegation to Sihon and that to the king of Edom (Num 20:14–21; Judg 11:17), many scholars sought to isolate directions of influence and the inner chronology between the descriptions. See W. A. Sumner, “Israel’s Encounters with Edom, Moab, Ammon, Sihon, and Og according to the Deuteronomist,” VT 18 (1968), 216–28; John van Seters, “The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Examination,” JBL 91 (1972): 182–97; John Raymond Bartless, Edom and the Edomites (JSOPSup 77; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 180–81. Nevertheless, their inquiries were generally limited to the historical and literary data, ignoring the list of sites and the geography—an oversight I wish to rectify here.

[12] The close similarity between the three versions of the Sihon narrative shows that they are based on a written document, the original E text, which was altered by various writers, but whose traces can be discerned by a comparison of the three portrayals. The lost opening verse to this account, which records the Israelites’ arrival in Kadesh, can be found in Jephthah’s speech (Judg 11:16b).

[13] See Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, 144–149. She also takes pains to indicate all the verses that describe the Israelites who left Egypt as an army (150–152).

[14] Bacon identifies “Beer” in Numbers with “Beer-elim” in the Moab Pronouncement (Isa 15:8); see Benjamin Wisner Bacon, The Triple Tradition of the Exodus (Hartford, Conn.: The Students Publishing Company, 1894), 160; Jan Jozef Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 262, 436; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 231. The attribution of both toponyms to Moab is not baseless. Likewise, the adjectival “elim” meant rulers/chieftains in Moab (Exod 15:15); and it was “chieftains” who dug the well (Num 21:18).

[15] LXX reads “and from the well (kαι ἀπὸ Φρέατος)” instead of “and from the wilderness,” and seems to be the more original in this case.

Num 23:13 Then Balak said to him, “Come with me to another place from which you can see them – you will see only a portion of them; you will not see all of them – and damn them for me from there.” 23:14 With that, he took him to Sedeh-zophim, on the summit of Pisgah.

[19] Haran, as well, formulates this similarly. See Menahem Haran, “The Exodus Routes in the Pentateuchal Sources,” Tarbiz 40 (1971): 113–43, esp. 138 (Hebrew). Scholars generally agree that “the steppes of Moab” is a region northeast of the Dead Sea. See Burton MacDonald, “East of the Jordan”: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures (ASOR 6; Boston: 2000), 87; Ze’ev Meshel, “Defining the Biblical ‘Araba,'” in “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin (eds. W. S. Crawford et al.; Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 423–35, n. 6. See the extensive bibliographies in both articles. P and E explicitly mention the Israelite encampment in the steppes of Moab (E – Num 22:1; P – Num 26:3, 63; 31:12, and more). However, according to J, that has the Israelites enter Canaan in the vicinity of Jericho, the journey route also passed to the northeast of the Dead Sea, which is the region that is to be identified with P and E’s “steppes of Moab.”

[23] Roskop did not examine this possibility, since she maintains that the Documentary Hypothesis cannot be used for the journey route in Transjordan, because the criterion of the name of God is hardly applicable in those chapters. See Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, 204. But this is a limited and incomplete conceptualization about how the Documentary Hypotheses works. Documentarians do not distinguish between the various documents solely on the basis of differences in divine names; many other factors come into play.

[24] E’s itinerary in Num 20–21 is shorter than the itinerary in the original document. Most of E’s journey in the Araba valley, including Aaron’s death at Moserah was omitted to create the impression that the journey took place on the Jordanian plateau. See my TABS essay, “Why Deuteronomy Has an Account of Aaron’s Death in the Wrong Place,” for details.

[25] See Exod 13:20, 16:1, 17:1, 19:2; Num 10:12, 20:22, 21:11a

[26] Despite, and in opposition to, the proofs that she brought, Roskop states that Num 33 is not Priestly, but rather is a collection of all the itinerary notes, with the addition of sites from the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua that were reformulated in a style imitative of the annals style. See Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries 223–232.

[27] Noth already attributed Kadesh, Mount Hor, Oboth, and Iye-abarim to P. See Noth, “Wallfahrtsweg,” 171; idem, Numbers, 159). Davies argued that Num 33 is an independent source. In order to negate its attribution to P, he asserted, without substantiation, that Mount Hor was copied here from Num 21:4b, which he ascribes to a non-Priestly tradition. See Graham I. Davies, “Wilderness Itineraries” (see n. 1), 1–8, esp. 8, 11.

[29] I proposed elsewhere viewing the opening verse of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:1) as a journey route leading from the Edomite plateau to north of the Arnon. The Pisgah itinerary of J is the only route that could be the continuation of this journey. See David Ben-Gad HaCohen, Kadesh in the Pentateuchal Narratives (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2010), 143–145 [Hebrew].

[30] Many scholars, like Julius Wellhausen and August Dillmann, divide the Balaam story into two sources. See Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Reimer, 1899), 110–111; August Dillman, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josua (KEHAT2; Leipzig, 1886), ad loc. Of all the various criteria for division suggested, in my view, only the geographical argument has withstood criticism. The parallel account, which calls the same mountain Peor, would be from the E source. Since a single author would not have used the same characterization for different peaks, or use different names for the same mountain, we may reasonably assume that the author who used the toponym “the summit of Pisgah” is not the same author who preferred the toponym “the peak of Peor,” after the name of the adjoining settlement: Beth-peor. For a summation of the objection to the method of Wellhausen and his school regarding the Balaam narrative, see Alexander Rofé, The Book of Balaam: Numbers 22.2–24.25: A Study in Methods of Criticism and the History of Biblical Literature and Religion (Jerusalem: Simor, 1979), 13–26 [Hebrew].

[32] As stated above, I do not think that Numbers 20–21 can be explained well with a supplementary approach, which posits that an original list grew in stages, with different scribes utilizing their own styles. Rather, the documentary approach is best here, according to which the chapter contains three separate itineraries spliced together, each written in its own style and which belong to separate narratives.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the articles/divrei Torah on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of TABS.

TheTorah.com

A Historical and Contextual Approach TM

Mission

Project TABS (Torah And Biblical Scholarship) is an educational organization founded to energize the Jewish people by integrating the study of the Torah and other Jewish texts with the disciplines and findings of academic scholarship.